Out or Not Out?
Printed From: Cricket World
Category: Let's Talk Cricket
Forum Name: Facts, Stats & Records
Forum Discription:
URL: http://www.cricketworld.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3423
Printed Date: 24 May 2013 at 6:15pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.71 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Out or Not Out?
Posted By: Freddie
Subject: Out or Not Out?
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:06am
|
I've two questions to ask about whether this would be out or not out?
1) If a batsman hits the ball and the ball then deflects of the non-striking batsman's bat and is caught by a fielder, which one is out, the striker or non-striker?
2) If a batsman is bowled and the bails are broken, and then the bails go up into the air and land back on the stumps int he exavct perfect position, would it be out or would it be not out? ------------- On extended leave... |
Replies:
Posted By: -JP-
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 9:42am
|
1) The striker, I believe. This almost happened not long ago when one of Clarke or Symonds hit a ball which deflected off the other's body and was caught. The striker was given out. 2) Tricky. It depends on whether you are out once the bails are broken or once the ball is deemed to be dead. |
Posted By: Kerm
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 11:51am
|
I think for no.2 the batsman is considered out as soon as the bails are
dislodged regardless of wether they land back on the stumps. Also
I'm fairly sure the ball is called dead as soon as a wicket falls so
i'd say out.
------------- Kerm |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 12:52pm
|
1. striker is out. 2. not out, bail must be completly removed from top of stumps, bails could do a triple somersault and land back on the top of the stumps and it would still be not out. A side question, how many of you have seen a ball go through the stumps without dislodging the bails? I have seen it twice and still shake my head about it. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: Kerm
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 12:59pm
|
2. I'm almost entirely sure that means one of the bails leaving contact
with the stumps means out. if it leaves contact and then resettles on
the stumps my understanding is that it would still be out as it is out
from the time contact is removed from the stumps. As for a ball going through the stumps without knocking off the bails ... erm no. the times I have seen that the bails have gone flying. ------------- Kerm |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 1:06pm
|
Sorry kerm, your off the mark I am afraid. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: Kerm
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:27pm
|
Hmm well I seem to be applying some common sense to it, your saying if the bail goes flying off and lands back on the stumps then it is not out ?
------------- Kerm |
Posted By: Clobber
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:44pm
| I am pretty sure that many years ago I heard an "ask the umpire" thing on the radio where a player had been bowldr by a spinner, the bails hit the keeper's pads and bounced back into their normal position, and the upshot was not out |
Posted By: Kerm
Date Posted: 01 April 2007 at 5:51pm
|
Sounds like a very odd rule, if I bowled someone and it got given not out due to a freak accident I wouldn't be massivly but rules are rules.
------------- Kerm |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 8:02am
|
I got one question too, here it goes : The wicket-keeper dislogdes the bails for a stumping but the batsmen's feet go out or above(whichever the case) only after the bails are broken . In that case is he out or not out ? ------------- |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 8:20am
I remember it happening to Pat Symcox in a test on the subcontinent - boy , did he laugh!! ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 8:22am
Not out lad. Watch a wicketkeeper when he has the ball in his gloves - he waits for the batsman to overbalance before removing the bails. It's only when the batsman is out of his ground that the bails get removed instantly. ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: dips_december
Date Posted: 02 April 2007 at 8:46am
|
Thanks Sledger. ------------- |
Posted By: benkola13
Date Posted: 07 April 2007 at 10:21pm
I havent seen that but have you seen the ball hit the stumps and the bails not come off? I have seen this twice. By SimonJones and Andrew Flintoff (I think). ------------- "I Need You To Remember One Thing, I Came, I Saw, I Conquered" |
Posted By: Whitheand
Date Posted: 09 April 2007 at 12:23pm
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not out, however, I think the Wicketkeeper would then (attempt to) remove the stump from the ground(using the ball), which would then be out? Feel free to murder me if I'm talking hogwash, I could have sworn that was the rule to do with running out/stumping a batsman whos bails have already been removed. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 09 April 2007 at 12:37pm
|
If the batsman was that slow getting back, then yes, he would be out. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: 70_degree_spin
Date Posted: 09 April 2007 at 9:03pm
|
if a batsmans hat/helmet falls off on to the stumps from a ball hitting it, is that out?
------------- [ |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 10 April 2007 at 2:14am
|
Yes ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: joelza1990
Date Posted: 23 April 2007 at 2:22am
| Yes for number 1 the striker is out. In 2005/06 season Andrew Symonds cracked one back down the pitch, deflected off Michael Clarke's pad and was caught at mid-wicket by Mahela Jayawardene. |
Posted By: Jonnyscricket
Date Posted: 27 April 2007 at 8:44pm
I agree with kerm, havent you ever watched 3rd umpire stumpings? they say it is out as soon as the bails are disloged so there is no saying they could land back and be not out. I personally think the only way you can get away with it is if the umpire doesnt notice the bails going up and back down on the stumps.
|
Posted By: cricketfan
Date Posted: 27 April 2007 at 8:57pm
|
Hi there, In the first case, the batsman at the striker's end is out. In the second case, batsman is not out, bails or/and stumps should move from normal position to make a batsman out. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 9:13am
You may agree with him, but it is still wrong, have a look at the definition of being dislodged. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: Pietersen Fan
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 11:32am
|
what would happen, if the wicket was so muddy that when the ball was bowled it just stopped and stuck in the ground, would it be a no-ball/dead ball and would the batsmen still be allowed to hit it? ------------- check out the ultimate spinners guide - spinny.co.nr |
Posted By: wiseguy
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 11:32am
|
Third umpire is only refered those cases where the bails have been disloged, I have never seen a case refered where abails actually landed back on the stumps. So third umpire just looks at the time of initial dislogment of the bails which are finally dislogged, and do not settle back at their origional position! ------------- so far so good! |
Posted By: wiseguy
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 11:34am
Its pretty hypothetical for the pitch to have such a muddy area appearing all of a sudden to contain the ball, but I believe the batsmen may have a strike allowed as long as the Umpire has not ruled it out as a dead ball! ------------- so far so good! |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 28 April 2007 at 11:36am
I can't imagine any umpire allowing you to play on wicket that muddy. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 7:18am
|
I find these 'opinions' on matters that are clearly set out in the laws of the game quite interesting. In this case there is no debate as http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-28-the-wicket-is-down,54,AR.html - Law 28 is quite clear: 28.1. Wicket put down (b) The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal. ------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 7:28am
|
I think there would be a large % of cricketers who have never even sited a rule book, they just go on hand me down knowledge, wich like all second hand news changes a little each time it's passed down the line. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 7:33am
|
That, presumably, is why http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/ - the laws are freely available on-line with full guidance on their interpretation. I'm sorry, but ignorance of the laws is inexcusable if you really want to play the game. ------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 7:37am
|
Careful up on that high horse, can be a long fall. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:06am
|
I'm sorry, I was simply pointing out that the laws of the game are readily accessible to anyone who has an interest in factually commentary over guesswork. ------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:09am
|
There would be internationals that have never read a rulebook. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:13am
|
That's idle speculation not grounded in fact or reason; I doubt there is a footballer anywhere in the world playing to any decent level that doesn't have a good understanding of the rules of football. I seriously doubt you could play international cricket without a thorough understanding of the laws.
------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:16am
|
So your countering my idle speculation with your own speculation? ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:27am
|
No, let me repeat - I seriously doubt you could play international cricket without a thorough understanding of the laws. That is not speculation, it is my opinion expressed as such. The "I seriously doubt" prefix establishes it as my opinion and not a statement of fact. I do not see how you could play international cricket if you did not understand the laws governing the sport, and I think you do the professional game a disservice by suggesting that those playing it take little interest in its laws. ------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:31am
|
Your opinion is speculation, it's not based on fact. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:35am
|
Have you any interest in discussing this, or are you repeatedly going to post pointless one-liners? My opinion is based on fact, the fact that it is close to impossible to play sport professionally if you do not know the laws governing the game. Do you dispute this? Are you saying it is possible to play international sport without knowing what the game requires of you? Could you post more than 5 words in reply setting out what you believe?
------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:44am
|
I didn't know there was a minimum word count, basic knowledge is obviously a must, but in my opinion there would be players who have not sat down and read the rule book. For example, a few commentators recently, although not current international players, have had no idea of certain rules, I have been amazed with some of the lack of knowledge, it takes them a min or two for someone in the back of the box to flick through and find the applicable rule. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: bondy
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 9:55am
|
Interestingly enough I've spoken to several first-class cricketers in NZ when I was a part of an academy in Auckland. I spoke to them regularly outside cricket and was really good friends with a couple of them. They both knew the rules to the same extent I did and said that there is only a handful of international players, within NZ anyway, that know the rules inside out. ------------- Good one Graham! |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 8:08pm
|
The elective ignorance of a handful of New Zealanders is not the matter in hand. I contest that it is nigh on impossible to play international cricket if you do not understand the laws governing the game. I'm also interested that you happened to have this rather fortuitous conversation with them, and that academy cricketers have that level of intimate knowledge of their international colleagues. If a first class cricketer plays the game ignorant of the rules they are guilty of gross incompetence.
------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 29 April 2007 at 11:09pm
|
------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: kev2006
Date Posted: 08 May 2007 at 10:39am
| For the first one I would've thought that once the bails are dislodged the batsman's out regardless of whether they fall back onto the stumps which is highly unlikely anyway. And for the second the striker's out, saw it happen to clarke when he hit it into symonds or vice versa. Its akin to you hitting the ball into a bloke's foot and it bouncing up and being caught. |
Posted By: sammythola7
Date Posted: 16 May 2007 at 12:20pm
Wasnt Pakistan in South Africa then clobs, coz i was watching the match, he loughed rediculously. ------------- Your Fear in a snake is your faith in the snake's ability to bite you. |
Posted By: bondy
Date Posted: 16 May 2007 at 12:56pm
I have used this ignorance to illustrate that not all players at a high-level have a deep understanding of the rules.
Fortuitous? Considering we used to train together the rules where often discussed- whether it be in a trival sense or matter of fact. It is your opinion that one must know the rules inside out and I don't disagree. I am simply stating what I have encountered.
Intimate knowledge? Those who play domestic cricket, believe it or not, play with regular internationals. Their experiences, albeit slight speculation, display their lack of intimiate knowledge with the rules. I agree that the rules should be known inside out, though unfortunately this is not always the case. ------------- Good one Graham! |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 16 May 2007 at 2:49pm
Sammy over there , not in SA. I can't remember who it was against , but I do recall Boycott commentating and finding the whole thing hilarious. Geoffrey's love of India and their affection for him suggests in was in that country , but that is not conclusive. Lastly , Clobs is that lovely Scottish fella - I'm that sarcastic , old and miserable Englishman !  ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 17 May 2007 at 6:55am
Can I check I understand this - you had regular conversations about the laws with people who didn't know them. Must have been fascinating dialogue. For clarity - my tongue resides within my cheek. ------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: bondy
Date Posted: 20 May 2007 at 12:08pm
Touché ------------- Good one Graham! |
Posted By: strokemaker
Date Posted: 09 June 2007 at 8:44pm
just noticed this post from a while ago. I see that we now know the answer after KP's dismissal today.  |
Posted By: wolves f c1
Date Posted: 13 July 2007 at 10:32pm
|
2 questions:
If the ball takes a stump out of the ground and somehow the bail doesn't come off, out or not out?
if the ball lands in keepers leg pads, without bouncing, then keeper picks it up, is it out or not? ------------- 800 posts WOOT!!!!!!! di£kinson is a cheating, lieing scumbag! |
Posted By: spin wizard
Date Posted: 13 July 2007 at 10:53pm
|
The first one is pretty dumb; the two bails would have to be stuck together for that to happen.
2 is out! ------------- In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage. |
Posted By: The Tyke
Date Posted: 13 July 2007 at 11:19pm
The first one is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely that it would happen. More chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning I'd say. But in the very highly unlikely event that it does happen I'd say not out because the bails have not been broken.
The second one, out. The ball hasn't struck the ground so it's a catch. That's what I'd go for anyway. ------------- Minn hugur er minn sverš (My mind is my sword) |
Posted By: wolves f c1
Date Posted: 14 July 2007 at 9:59am
|
Thanks people, great help (second one mainly) ------------- 800 posts WOOT!!!!!!! di£kinson is a cheating, lieing scumbag! |
Posted By: W.G.
Date Posted: 15 July 2007 at 7:22am
------------- When you win the toss - bat. If you are in doubt, think about it - then bat. If you have very big doubts, consult a colleague - then bat. |
Posted By: spin wizard
Date Posted: 15 July 2007 at 3:53pm
|
Seems like they were used right after they got varnished. ------------- In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage. |
Posted By: zuhair_abbasi
Date Posted: 01 August 2007 at 11:14am
------------- http://thecricketinsight.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Max Power
Date Posted: 01 August 2007 at 12:57pm
|
Aggers raised a question in TMS the other day which I didn't happen to hear the answer to, anyone here got an answer? If the advertising 'triangle' (can't think of the right term, but it sits on the rope during tests) has become dislodged, and is lying a meter or so forward of the boundary rope, and a fielder happens to take a catch in between the two, is that out or a 6? I know this is an extremely unlikely situation, just wondered what anyone made of it? ------------- There's 2 ways of doing things - the right way, and the MAX POWER way! BT&OBCC |
Posted By: -JP-
Date Posted: 01 August 2007 at 1:09pm
|
Surely the rope is the boundary line, not the triangle, so it would be out.
------------- |
Posted By: Monty
Date Posted: 01 August 2007 at 10:31pm
|
if a fielder sees the ball is going over the boundary for 6, but only just, is he allowed to go over the boundary, jump and catch in midair, and while he is still in midair throw it up, then land on the the ground run back over the boundary and catch it. Would this be out ? (sorry if noone understands me) ------------- Flavia et Cornelia sedebat sub arbore!!! Oh My goodness!! Sitting under a tree! |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 10:37am
|
If he's that good he deserves the wicket ! As long as he's
airborne when he takes it , throws it up and re-gathers inside the rope
without the ball bouncing , it's out. He could also knock it forward for a colleague to catch and that's also out. ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: Max Power
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 10:47am
|
I would have thought that if he jumped from outside of the boundary though, that wouldn't count?
------------- There's 2 ways of doing things - the right way, and the MAX POWER way! BT&OBCC |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 10:59am
|
I'm not sure Homer - I'm old school , in my day outside the boundary
rope meant you were in the front row of the stand ! The rope is
so far in nowadays that autograph signing players are often outside the
field of play when the ball's delivered. Why can't a guy with a really long name just finish scribbling and jump up to knock the ball back into play and let a pal take it? ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: Clobber
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 11:03am
something similar happened in the Notts v Warks Pro 40 match last week. Mark Wagh took a catch on the boundary but overbalanced. Realising he was going to step over the boundary he threw the ball up in the air, took a step over the rope to steady himself then stepped back inside the rope and took the catch. |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 1:24pm
|
Great awareness Clobs , I'd like to have seen that. ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: Clobber
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 1:46pm
|
and so you can! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw |
Posted By: Kerm
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 1:50pm
|
Thats pretty damn impressive.
------------- Kerm |
Posted By: Max Power
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 2:09pm
|
That is quite some catch!
------------- There's 2 ways of doing things - the right way, and the MAX POWER way! BT&OBCC |
Posted By: scuudz
Date Posted: 02 August 2007 at 2:36pm
| The spectators behind the fielder were going nuts and signalling a six....hehe |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 03 August 2007 at 6:51am
|
Brilliant stuff Clobs , thanks for that! Technology huh , I remember saying that the telephone would never take off ! ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: Max Power
Date Posted: 03 August 2007 at 9:07am
|
You're showing your age now Sledge!
------------- There's 2 ways of doing things - the right way, and the MAX POWER way! BT&OBCC |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 03 August 2007 at 1:56pm
|
Just a tad lad , just a tad !!
------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: Monty
Date Posted: 07 August 2007 at 3:20pm
|
i know this isn't a out or not out question but i dont know where to put it sledge shoud know this...
in a test match if the scores are level and it is the end of play would it be considered a draw or a tie ------------- Flavia et Cornelia sedebat sub arbore!!! Oh My goodness!! Sitting under a tree! |
Posted By: -JP-
Date Posted: 07 August 2007 at 3:23pm
|
It'd be a draw unless all innings were completed.
------------- |
Posted By: Monty
Date Posted: 07 August 2007 at 9:02pm
|
thanks jp i think i might organise a quiz between you and sledge on knowledge ------------- Flavia et Cornelia sedebat sub arbore!!! Oh My goodness!! Sitting under a tree! |
Posted By: -JP-
Date Posted: 07 August 2007 at 11:23pm
|
Don't. Sledge would deservedly beat me by such a margin it would make Bermuda v India look like a good contest.
------------- |
Posted By: zuhair_abbasi
Date Posted: 13 November 2007 at 5:29am
|
I was not sure where to post this. I hope it will be moved in the rigt thread.
What would happen if a batsman is running and kicks the ball to the stumps before getting in the crease???? It happened in a local match here and we had long debate whether or not to give this out ------------- http://thecricketinsight.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: spin wizard
Date Posted: 13 November 2007 at 6:07pm
|
Seeing that the batsman himself kicked it, I think it should be not out but I don't know what the rules say. If he obstructed the fielder from getting it, he is out! ------------- In troubled times, being philosophical helps a great deal, it helps you to remain sane and not do any further damage. |
Posted By: fishcake14
Date Posted: 13 November 2007 at 7:29pm
I would've said that was out because the stumps had been broken before he was in the crease, and I'm guessing this kicking onto the stumps was entirely the batsman's fault so that would definitely make me give him out... I'm such a meanie!  ------------- |
Posted By: garrywarne
Date Posted: 14 November 2007 at 5:10am
No clarke played a pretty good straight drive i6t deflected of Symods bat, Symonds was given out, and to make up for it he said to Clarke "you owe me a beer". |
Posted By: zuhair_abbasi
Date Posted: 14 November 2007 at 5:51am
|
Or lets assume...it wasnt a deliberate kick...the batsman hit the ball straight towards the non striking batsman...the ball hits him and crashes the stumps while he is out of the crease...what now mates? ------------- http://thecricketinsight.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 14 November 2007 at 7:02am
|
I'd say not out , no fielding player has touched the ball. I think it's
no different from a straight drive that clatters into the stumps , the
backing up batsman is out of his ground , but the bowler doesn't get a
tough - that's not out.
------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: sandeepmjd
Date Posted: 22 November 2007 at 1:41pm
|
1)Striker is out
2)Not out(No way it would be given out).
|
Posted By: The Tyke
Date Posted: 26 November 2007 at 11:32am
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIV-p9-Zip8&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIV-p9-Zip8&feature=related
Not really an out or not out question but I didn't know where to put it.
Which one of these 2 would be out, or would they both be out? ------------- Minn hugur er minn sverš (My mind is my sword) |
Posted By: bondy
Date Posted: 26 November 2007 at 11:45am
|
I'd say the stumping of the bails at the bowlers end (Murali) is out, but it would depend on whether the batsman crossed as to who would be out, out of the two. ------------- Good one Graham! |
Posted By: -JP-
Date Posted: 26 November 2007 at 12:48pm
| Yup, once the bowler has broken those stumps, the ball was dead as he was out, but I can see why they carried on, as the first run out would have seemed quite close in real time. |
Posted By: vettori no2
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 9:18am
Nah garrywarne, I remember watching this and Symonds smacked it straight, it deflected off Clarke's pad, and was caught. Symonds was given out because it never touched the ground, he did take it well though!
|
Posted By: vettori no2
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 9:20am
| Okay, not quite out or not, but if the same thing happened, but Symonds hit it so hard that it bounced off someone's pads and went for 4/6, would that count? |
Posted By: Niv!
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 10:30am
|
it would probably be signalled as leg-byes ;) if it goes to the rope, it's a boundary. |
Posted By: zuhair_abbasi
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 10:34am
|
What if the fielder at th eboundary line collects the ball and while throwing the ball slips and crosses the boundary.will it be 6 over throws? ------------- http://thecricketinsight.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Niv!
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 11:09am
| I saw once, a batsman was caught, but after the fielder caught it, he stepped over, The batsman was awarded 6 runs and was out at the same time.. What would happen in the same scenario 9 wickets down needing 6 to win? |
Posted By: Sledger
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 1:12pm
Then the umpire got it wrong , it's 6 and the batsman stays. ------------- Mental disintegration works for me !! |
Posted By: 143no
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 1:18pm
|
Yeah, it's only 6 and out if it goes over the back fence. ------------- Monkey see, Monkey do. |
Posted By: bondy
Date Posted: 07 December 2007 at 9:23pm
|
that's the nature of backyard cricket- keep the ball on the ground, pity Gilly didn't learn ------------- Good one Graham! |
Posted By: samz
Date Posted: 08 December 2007 at 9:55am
|
1) Striker is Out. That happened when I bowled once and got a caught and bowled.
2) Not Out. Unless if the batsman does something silly like catching the bails and then placing it on the stumps. Now that would be funny to watch. (Apart from Inzy defending the ball, when a fielder took a shot at the stumps and got given out Obstructing the Field)
|
Posted By: zuhair_abbasi
Date Posted: 12 December 2007 at 7:24am
|
It happened on saturday when i was playing a club match. the striker hit the ball in the air, i was standing at the non striker end, the ball touched ma elbow guard and the straighitsh mid on fielder caught it and was given out. I never knew this rule before ------------- http://thecricketinsight.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Niv!
Date Posted: 12 December 2007 at 8:05am
| it's the same as the ball that hits bat then pad then is caught, only it's the non-striker's elbow |
Posted By: samz
Date Posted: 13 December 2007 at 6:43am
|
Yeah it is. Anything can happen, as long as it doesn't touch the ground. ------------- Manager of Hutt |
Posted By: tommyboy
Date Posted: 20 January 2008 at 11:33pm
|
they would be both out
|
Posted By: CoCoPoPs
Date Posted: 21 January 2008 at 12:15am
| no they wouldnt |
Posted By: vettori no2
Date Posted: 12 February 2008 at 4:33am
|
I bowled a while ago and I fooled the batsman who just managed to get the very bottom of the bat to hit the ball, but it slowed my already painfully sloth like bowling so that it hit the stumps, and the bails wobble but didn't come off! ------------- A tribute to the best signature ever. |
Posted By: bondy
Date Posted: 12 February 2008 at 9:05am
|
Rare when it happens, amazing when it does! Unlucky! ------------- Good one Graham! |